IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.11477 of 2025 Date of Decision: 17.7.2025 ___________________________________________________________________ Vivek Arora ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Viplav Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein, who at present is working as District Welfare cum Probation Officer, District Welfare Office, Sirmaur, is aggrieved of order dated 9.7.2025, whereby he has been transferred from afore station to District Welfare Office, Chamba, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, against vacancy. 2. It has been fairly admitted at the behest of the petitioner that he has completed normal tenure at present place of posting, but challenge has been laid to the impugned transfer order on the ground of adverse family circumstances. It is averred in the petition that mother of the petitioner, who is 83 years old, is a kidney patient and is - 2 - on dialysis. Since brother of the petitioner has passed away two months’ back, in the event of transfer of the petitioner from present place of posting to the transferred station, there would be none to take care of his ailing mother. 2. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed in the instant petition, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, who states that petitioner has been working at Nahan for more than seven years and as such, no interference is called for. 3. Since petitioner has completed more than seven years at present place of posting, there appears to be no justification to interfere in the impugned transfer order, however having taken note of the fact that mother of the petitioner is seriously ill coupled with the fact that petitioner has lost his brother two months back, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with direction to the respondents/competent authority to decide the pending representation having been filed by the petitioner (Annexure P-7), expeditiously, preferably, within two weeks. Ordered accordingly. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order thereupon taking note of transfer policy, which provides for adjustment of an employee, - 3 - on account of adverse family circumstances. Till the time representation is decided by the competent authority in terms of impugned transfer order, petitioner shall not be compelled to join at the transferred station. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. July 17, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge